Findings Of Fact Respondent Anglickis is a Florida real estate broker holding license number 0001869. Respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., is a corporate real estate broker holding license number 0169476. The address of both respondents is 102 East Leland Heights Boulevard, Lehigh Acres, Florida. (P-26.) Respondent Anglickis is president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., and Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. All three companies are located at the same address. (Testimony of Campbell; P-5, P-26.) On March 12, 1979, Louis G. Hofstetter and his wife, Dale I. Hofstetter, both residents of North Carolina, entered into a real estate contract with American Heritage Builders, Inc. Respondent Anglickis signed on behalf of American Hertiage Inc. Under the terms of the contract, the Hofstetters were to Purchase a lot and home to be constructed thereon by American Heritage Builders, Inc. The purchase price included the transfer of a lot owned by the Hofstetters and a cash down payment. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-1, P-3, P-26.) The contract estimated closing costs to be approximately $2,000". It also contained conflicting conditions relative to the time within which any mortgage financing must be obtained. . . . In the event PURCHASER'S application for mortgage financing is not approved within sixty (60) days from date hereof, all monies receipted for, less cost of credit report, will be returned to the PURCHASER and this contract will be null and void. * * * FOR MORTGAGE TRANSACTIONS: This contract of Purchase and Sale shall be void unless Purchaser's application for Mortgage has been approved by a bank or financial institution and Purchaser has executed the Mortgage Acceptance Form, within four (3) [sic] months from date of this Contract of Purchase. 2/ (P-1, R-1.) On March 12, 1979, the Hofstetters signed a mortgage loan application and submitted it to Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc. (P-26.) On May 5, 1979, 45 days after accepting the application, Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., submitted the Hofstetters' mortgage loan application to First Federal of DeSoto. (Testimony of Archer.) On June 15, 1979 (95 days after receiving the loan application), Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters indicating that the local lender needed additional information on their stock holdings, and enclosing a document titled "Good Faith Estimate of Settlement Charges". This document estimated that closing costs would be $2,754--$754 more than the estimate contained in the real estate contract. (P-5.) On June 22, 1979, the Hofstetters protested the increased closing cost, requested clarification, and provided the requested information on their stock holdings. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-26.) On July 7, 1979, the Hofstetters notified Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., that the increased closing cost deviated from the contract, that they therefore considered the contract cancelled and wanted the deposit refunded. (Testimony of Hofstetter; P-8.) On June 29, 1979, Robert Campbell, vice-president of Lee County Mortgage and Title, Inc., wrote the Hofstetters and explained the meaning of each component of the closing cost. (P-7.) On July 17, 1979, respondent, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote a letter to the Hofstetters expressing his position: * * * Let me try and put the contract in the proper perspective for you. It's our contention that you have reluctantly provided to us the information that would enable us to make a proper and expedient application to the lending institution and that much of this information has been confused, causing further delays. In accordance with the contract, you were to make this application as quickly and as expediently as Possible so that the contract would not expire. However, this is not the case. Thus, my immediate Position is that the contract should be expired and all of the deposits, including the cash and the lot which we gave you $6,995.00 trade for, would be forfeited as agreed upon liquidated damages. He ended by outlining other alternatives and repeating his asserted right to cancel the transaction and retain the Hofstetters' deposit as liquidated damages * * * First, the lending institution must make a quick determination based on the facts that they have that you are either eligible or not eligible for a mortgage loan as outlined in our contract. If they still do not have enough information, we have no other choice then but to ask you to pay the increase which we have experienced at this time (price list enclosed), and in paying that increase we would be willing to take another 90 days to try and secure a loan for you. If your mortgage loan is denied, your deposit less the costs of processing your mortgage application will be returned to you. Of course, the third choice is the choice I hope we do not have to take, and that is cancelling this transaction and retaining your monies as agreed upon liquidated damages. (P-9.) Mr. Hofstetter responded on July 22, 1979. He denied that he was responsible for any delay or confusion in the Processing of their loan application; asserted that 93 days had elapsed from the submission of their loan application and Mr. Campbell's letter of June 15, 1979, asking for additional financial information; and informed respondent Anglickis that the contract had already expired by virtue of the clause allowing 60 days to obtain mortgage financing. He then, again, asked that his deposit be returned. (P-10.) On July 30, 1979, respondent Anglickis, as president of American Heritage Builders, Inc., wrote to the Hofstetters indicating that the loan had been approved 3/ and he was prepared to build their home at the contract price. He then addressed Mr. Hofstetter's July 22, 1979, denial of any responsibility for delay in obtaining the mortgage loan: I have reviewed your letter of July 22, 1979 and I understand we certainly have a difference of opinion as to whose fault the delay has been caused by. However, I don't think it's time to look at whose fault the delay might be, since it all has worked out to your satisfaction. The mortgage has been approved and we are ready to build. I expect you will now sign the mortgage papers when receipted for so that we may begin construction immediately. (P-11.) On August 6, 1979, the Hofstetters restated to respondent Anglickis that they were not prepared to go ahead with construction, that the contract became null and void by operation of the 60-day mortgage financing clause, and that the deposit should be immediately returned. (P-12.) On August 31, 1979, respondent Anglickis notified the Hofstetters that, pursuant to the contract conditions, he was retaining their full deposit, including cash and the real estate lot for which they received a $6,995 credit toward the purchase price. The full down payment totaled $10,350. (P-1, P-13.) On September 8, 1979, the Hofstetters replied: We cannot understand why you continue to ignore the provisions of the second sentence of Paragraph Two on the reverse side of Contract No. 1997, dated 12 March 1979. You say you intend to invoke the Provisions of the third sentence of this para- graph, but this sentence is Predicated on the assumption that the mortgage would be approved within sixty (60) days. The mortgage was not approved until late July (your letter of 17 July 1979 indicated it was not yet approved, and your letter of 30 July 1979 stated that it had now been approved), more than 120 days past the date of the original contract. Our Position is as Previously stated on several occasions: on 12 May 1979 the contract became null and void, and on that date our deposit should have been refunded. Any action other than this is illegal, according to the terms of the contract. We are due return of our down payment, plus interest, from 12 May 1979. (P-24.) On October 3, 1979, First Federal of DeSoto, which had continued to process the Hofstetter loan application, issued a commitment approving the requested loan. On October 10, 1979, the Hofstetters rejected the mortgage loan. (P-26.) Subsequently, the Hofstetters wrote letters to the Florida Department of Legal Affairs and the Lehigh Chamber of Commerce complaining of respondent Anglickis' retention of their deposit; they, then, retained an attorney and filed a civil action against respondents in the circuit court of Lee County. That action was settled out-of-court. There is no evidence whatsoever to support respondent Anglickis' assertion to the Hofstetters that they were dilatory or responsible for confusion or delay in obtaining the necessary mortgage financing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the charges against respondent American Heritage Realty, Inc., be dismissed; That respondent Richard A. Anglickis be administratively fined $1,000. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of October, 1982, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. R. L. CALEEN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oaklnd Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of October, 1982.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, respondent, George Sherbon, was a licensed real estate broker having been issued broker's license number 0348688 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Division of Real Estate (Division). When the events herein occurred, respondent was employed as a salesman for V. P. Stone, Inc., a real estate firm located at 5905 Gulf Boulevard, St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. On April 1, 1987, Paul D. and Anna Martin entered into a listing agreement with Century 21 Spinning Wheel Ent., Inc. (Century 21) to sell their home at 2543 58th Terrace South, St. Petersburg, Florida. The listing agent was Cheryl Coudry, now known as Cheryl Hutton, a licensed salesperson with Century 21. On September 11, 1987 respondent solicited and obtained a contract for sale on the Martin property executed by Frank Dicenzo, a resident of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who had a daughter living in the St. Petersburg area. Dicenzo had responded to an advertisement run by Sherbon in a Pittsburgh newspaper. After a week or so of negotiations, the parties eventually agreed to a sales price of $92,500, and the final contract was executed on September 20, 1987. The contract called for Dicenzo to make an initial $100 deposit when the contract was executed and an additional deposit of $19,900 by September 25, 1987, or a total deposit of $20,000. Dicenzo gave respondent the initial $100 which was deposited into the escrow account of V. P. Stone, Inc. The contract provided further that the sale would be contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a $72,500 first mortgage. Finally, in accordance with Dicenzo's request, the contract provided that Dicenzo could take occupancy of the premises four weeks after the loan was approved. It is noted that Dicenzo initially asked for occupancy by October 16, 1987. On September 18, Sherbon introduced Dicenzo to Tony Black, a loan officer at Savings of America, a local lending institution, for the purpose of Dicenzo making a loan application. On September 24, or the day before the additional deposit was due, Dicenzo became ill with what he described as a bleeding ulcer and decided to return to Pittsburgh and stay at his mother's home. Before he left, Dicenzo did not make the additional deposit as required by the contract. According to Dicenzo, he placed no great significance on the September 25 due date and felt that if the deposit was made "within a reasonable time," it would be okay. Respondent was aware of the September 25 deadline and attempted to get a check for the $19,900 deposit from Dicenzo's daughter but was unsuccessful. Respondent contends he kept trying to contact Dicenzo in Pittsburgh during the next five week period but was unable to reach him. Dicenzo acknowledged he knew that Sherbon was trying to contact him but still made no effort to talk to Sherbon. Instead, he simply told his daughter he would take care of the matter when he returned to Florida in late October. Whether this message was conveyed to Sherbon is not of record. Sherbon prepared contemporaneous notes concerning the transaction and used these to refresh his recollection at hearing. He pointed out that such notes were kept on all real estate transactions. According to his notes, he telephoned Coudry and Black on September 24 concerning Dicenzo's illness and the fact that he was having difficulty obtaining the additional deposit from Dicenzo. Although Black recalled talking with Sherbon, he denied that Sherbon told him that there was no deposit and said such information was a material item that would have prompted him to stop processing the application until the deposit could be verified. Likewise, Coudry, who could not recall many aspects of the transaction, did recall speaking with Sherbon but remembered Sherbon simply telling her that he was in the process of showing Dicenzo various commercial properties and would be obtaining the deposit at that time. Their testimony is deemed to be more credible and persuasive and is hereby accepted. Coudry assumed that Sherbon had received the additional deposit since she was never specifically told otherwise by Sherbon. Accordingly, she did not contact the Martins until several weeks after the September 25 due date. Coudry did not learn that no deposit had been collected until mid-January 1988 when Anna Martin disclosed to her this fact. In the meantime, although the Martins knew the contract was contingent on Dicenzo obtaining a loan, they nonetheless assumed that Dicenzo would have no problem securing a loan and that such a loan would be approved in a week or so. Also, they knew the contract called for possession of the property by Dicenzo four weeks after the loan was approved. Because of these assumptions, and having received no advice from Coudry that the full deposit had not been made on September 25 as required by the contract, the Martins made application around September 28 to buy another home in a nearby modular home park and asked that the application be expedited. Unfortunately for the Martins, they were far more successful than Dicenzo in securing prompt approval of their loan application. Once approved, and after a closing was held, the Martins had the utilities hooked up, erected a storage shed, and incurred other expenses. Also, they began making mortgage payments on the second house. On October 24, 1987 the Martins telephoned Sherbon and told him their listing with Century 21 had expired. During the conversation, Sherbon did not mention that Dicenzo had failed to make the $19,900 deposit. Dicenzo's application with Savings of America was denied on October 30, 1987 because of Dicenzo's "ratio of ... expenses to ... total income." By this time, Dicenzo had returned to Florida and had spoken with Sherbon. At respondent's urging, Dicenzo reapplied to the same institution and was turned down a second time on November 12, 1987. In addition, at Coudry's suggestion, Dicenzo had already visited another lender in October but refused to pay a $250 application fee and consequently did not file an application. Also, through Sherbon, Dicenzo was given the name of a mortgage lender suggested by the Martins but, after three visits, decided not file an application. Information regarding the second Savings of America denial was conveyed to Coudry around mid-November but, for whatever reason, she did not contact Sherbon regarding the status of the contract. It is noteworthy that at that time Sherbon did not tell Coudry that Dicenzo had still failed to make an additional deposit as required by the contract. Despite the loan application denials, Sherbon encouraged Dicenzo to keep trying to arrange financing so that the deal could go through. Dicenzo agreed to do so but, as noted in the following finding of fact, at that point Dicenzo considered the contract to be "null and void." Sherbon's efforts to find financing continued until mid-January 1988. When the loan application was denied on November 12, Dicenzo construed the contract to be void since the financing contingency was not met. According to Dicenzo, he did not believe the property was tied up while his contract was pending, felt no obligation to make the $19,900 deposit because it meant he would have to transfer funds from a money market account he purportedly maintained in Pittsburgh, and felt no moral obligation to the Martins even though by then they had committed themselves to a second home. The Martins were advised by telephone on the evening of November 12 of the second turn down of Dicenzo's loan application. By then, however, they were already committed to the second purchase. They claimed they did not learn of Dicenzo's failure to make the $19,900 deposit until mid-January 1988 when Sherbon visited their home and disclosed this fact. This is also borne out by a letter from the Martins' attorney to Dicenzo on December 1, 1987 advising Dicenzo that the contract was void and a claim might be made on his deposit for damages. When the Martins learned that only $100 had been deposited, they filed a complaint with the Division. That prompted this proceeding. Because of the failed contract, the Martins were unable to maintain two mortgage payments and were ultimately forced to give up the second home at a substantial monetary loss. They have since returned to their first home. The evidence shows that in the real estate trade, it is not customary or proper for the buyer's realtor to personally contact the seller. Rather, the practice and custom is for the buyer's agent to advise the listing broker of all pertinent developments and the listing broker then relays any necessary information to the seller. Thus, Sherbon had no responsibility to personally advise the Martins of any information pertaining to the contract. Rather, this responsibility rested with Coudry. Respondent contended he kept Coudry abreast of all developments concerning Dicenzo and that he assumed Coudry would advise the Martins that no deposit had yet been collected. To the extent this version of events conflicts with previous findings, it is not accepted. Sherbon expressed sympathy for the Martins' plight but maintained he was not at fault. There is no evidence that Sherbon has been subjected to prior disciplinary action by the Division.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 475.25(1)(b), Florida Statutes (1987) to the extent noted in the conclusions of law and that his broker's license be suspended for three months. All other charges should be dismissed. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 26th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 26th day of April, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4688 Petitioner: 1-2. Covered in finding of fact l. Rejected as being unnecessary. Covered in finding of fact 2. 5-7. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 10. Covered in finding of fact 7. Rejected since respondent owed a duty to Coudry, and not the Martins, to keep her abreast of all pertinent matters. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 12. Covered in findings of fact 7 and 8. Covered in finding of fact 8. Covered in findings of fact 6 and 10. Rejected as being subordinate to other findings. Covered in finding of fact 11. 18-19. Covered in finding of fact 6. Respondent: Respondent's proposed order contains sections entitled "admitted facts", "unrebutted facts" and "uncontested facts". They are ruled upon in that order. Admitted facts: Covered in finding of fact l. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 2. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in finding of fact 3. Covered in background. Unrebutted facts: Covered in finding of fact 7. Covered in finding of fact 15. Covered in finding of fact 10. 4-6. Covered in finding of fact 6. 7-8. Covered in finding of fact 5. Covered in finding of fact 11. Covered in finding of fact 12. Rejected since Sherbon learned of the loan denial even though he did not receive a written copy of the turn-down letter. Covered in finding of fact 13. Covered in finding of fact 8. Rejected since the testimony of Anna Martin is accepted as being more credible on this factual issue. Uncontested facts: Rejected as being cumulative. Partially covered in findings of fact 6, 7 and 16. The remainder is rejected as being cumulative, argument of counsel or not supported by the more credible evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Daniel B. Schuh, Esquire 248 Mirror Drive St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Darlene Keller, Director Division of Real Estate Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Kenneth E. Easley, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue The issue is whether respondent acted as a mortgage lender within the meaning of Section 494.001(3), Florida Statutes, and thus is subject to Division licensure requirements.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: Petitioner, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance (Division), is a state agency charged with the responsibility of administering and enforcing the Florida Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Act which is codified in Chapter 494, Florida Statutes. Among other things, the Division regulates mortgage lenders and requires such persons or entities to secure a license. Respondent, White Pine Resouces, Inc. (WPR), is a Florida corporation formed in March 1986. Its sole shareholder is John R. Grass, a Pensacola attorney. Although the corporation was originally formed for a number of purposes, its primary activity is the real estate investment business. It holds no licenses issued by, or registrations with, the Division. WPR's current business address is 358-C West Nine Mile Road, Pensacola, Florida. WPR's principal source of money is Grass, or his professional association, who loan money to the corporation. In some cases, the money is used to acquire parcels of property for resale, make necessary repairs or improvements, and then provide owner financing to the buyer. In other cases, WPR loans money to persons needing to make improvements to their homes or rental property and takes back a second mortgage from the borrower. These types of transactions, which occurred during the years 1992-95, are found in documents offered in evidence as petitioner's exhibits 1-5. Respondent has also stipulated that several other transactions of this nature occurred during that same period of time. In every case, WPR was investing its own money or that of its principal. In 1992, a Division examiner analyst noted the following listing in the Yellow Pages section of the Pensacola telephone directory under the heading of "Mortgages": White Pine Resources Having Trouble With Financing Residential & Land Fast Service on 1st Mortgages The advertisement also contained respondent's street address and telephone number. In the 1993-94 telephone directory, WPR carried the following advertisement under the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pine Resources Specialists! Bad Credit - We Can Help Vacant Land Loans In the 1995-96 telephone directory, WPR placed the following advertisement in the "Mortgages" section of the Yellow Pages: White Pines Resources A Private Investor Not a Mortgage Broker Specialists! We Can Help Vacant Land Loans Although the Division first noted one of WPR's Yellow Page advertisements in 1992, for some reason it did not conduct a formal investigation of respondent's activities until February 28, 1994. On that day, an examiner analyst made an unannounced visit to respondent's office for the purpose of inspecting its records to determine if WPR was acting as a mortgage lender. However, WPR's principal, John R. Grass, was not in the office, and the analyst simply left his business card and a message for Grass to contact him. The next morning, Grass telephoned the analyst's supervisor and advised him that since WPR was merely a private investor, and not a mortgage lender, it was not subject to the Division's regulation, and hence it would not provide copies of its records. A subpoena duces tecum was then issued by the Division, records were produced pursuant to the subpoena, and this controversy ensued. The parties agree, however, that this action was not prompted by complaints from consumers or other persons having dealings with WPR. The record indicates that a mortgage lender differs from a private investor in several material respects. An important distinction is that a private investor uses its own funds rather than those of another party. Also, a private investor does not buy or sell paper, does not escrow taxes, does not split or broker commissions, and does not close its own loans. In all of these respects, WPR had the attributes of a private investor. When mortgage brokerage firms are involved in transactions with private investors, they must supply the private investor with certain documents that are not provided to an institutional investor. Among others, they include a disclosure agreement, receipt of recorded instruments, an appraisal or waiver of the same, and title insurance. In addition, Division rules require that a mortgage brokerage firm record its transactions with private investors in a log journal known as DBF-MB-888. The evidence shows that for transactions between WPR and at least two mortgage brokerage firms during the years in question, the two firms recorded those transactions on DBF-MB-888. They also provided WPR with documents typically given to private investors. The Division has adopted Rule 3D-40.290(2), Florida Administrative Code, which provides that a person is deemed to be holding himself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business if he advertises in a manner "which would lead the reader to believe the person was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans." The rule has not been challenged and, for purposes of resolving this controversy, is presumed to be valid. In view of the representations that WPR provided "Fast Service on 1st Mortgages" and "Vacant Land Loans," it is fair to infer that the Yellow Page advertisements made by WPR would reasonably lead the reader to believe that WPR was in the business of buying, making or selling mortgage loans. Therefore, by virtue of advertising in the Yellow Pages, WPR is deemed to be holding itself out to the public as being in the mortgage lending business. During the years 1993-95, the Division routinely sent WPR questionnaires regarding various WPR transactions with licensed lenders. The transmittal letter accompanying the questionnaire noted that the Division was conducting "a routine examination" of the licensed lender (and not WPR), and WPR's comments would "be of material assistance to (the Division) in determining compliance with the Florida Mortgage Brokerage Act." By way of an estoppel defense, WPR has essentially contended that the questionnaires constituted a representation by the Division that WPR was merely a private lender. It further contends that, to its detriment, it relied upon that representation. But there is nothing in the documents that states that the Division considered WPR to be a private lender. Nor is there any evidence that the Division made any other oral or written representations to WPR that it did not need to secure a license. Finally, assuming arguendo that such a representation occurred, there was no showing that WPR relied to its detriment on such an alleged "misstatement of fact." WPR also raises the defense of laches arguing that it was severely prejudiced by the Division's delay in prosecuting this action. Except for testimony that respondent was forced to secure the services of an attorney to defend against this action, and its principal was required to attend a hearing, there was no showing of prejudice on the part of WPR.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order requiring respondent to cease and desist from engaging in the mortgage lending business without a license. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of June, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of June, 1996. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 95-0290 Petitioner: Because petitioner's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. Respondent: Because respondent's post-hearing filing is more in the nature of a memorandum of law containing argument rather than proposed findings of fact, specific rulings have not been made. COPIES FURNISHED: Honorable Bob Milligan Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Harry L. Hooper, III, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Clyde C. Caillouet, Jr., Esquire 4900 Bayou Boulevard, Suite 103 Pensacola, Florida 32503 John T. Reading, Jr., Esquire 358-C West Nine Mile Road Pensacola, Florida 32534-1818
The Issue The issue is whether PMF, Inc.’s (PMF), mortgage broker license should be revoked and an administrative fine imposed on PMF’s principal loan originator, Scott Cugno, for the reasons stated in an Administrative Complaint (Complaint) issued by the Office of Financial Regulation (OFR) on January 18, 2017.
Findings Of Fact Background OFR is the state agency charged with administering and enforcing the provisions of chapter 494, which regulates loan originators, mortgage lenders, and mortgage brokers. Rules implementing the statutory law are found in chapter 69V-40. To ensure compliance with the law, OFR conducts periodic audits of the records and activities of all licensees. In early 2012, Mr. Cugno assumed ownership of PMF. From January 25, 2012, until January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage lender with its principal office located at 142 West Platt Street, Suite 118, Tampa. Besides the principal office, PMF operated five branch offices. As a mortgage lender, PMF could offer credit to an applicant, make the mortgage loan, and close the loan in its own name. § 494.001(23), Fla. Stat. To settle an earlier disciplinary action, PMF surrendered its lender license in December 2014. Pet’r Ex. 5. On December 30, 2014, PMF was issued mortgage broker license number MBR 1689, which still remains active. A mortgage broker conducts loan originator activities through one or more licensed loan originators employed by the broker. § 494.001(22), Fla. Stat. A broker shops an applicant’s credit and loan application to different lenders, but unlike a mortgage lender, it cannot close loans in its own name. § 494.001(17), Fla. Stat. Mr. Cugno is the sole owner of PMF and its principal loan originator. By definition, he is the control person of PMF. § 494.001(6)(a), (b), and (f), Fla. Stat. A control person is subject to administrative penalties if the broker or lender engages in prohibited acts set forth in section 494.00255(2). An audit of PMF’s business records and activities was conducted by OFR for the period July 1, 2014, through April 30, 2015. After the audit was concluded, a formal Report of Examination (Report) was forwarded to Mr. Cugno on February 25, 2016. Pet’r Ex. 1. The Report stated that it contained a series of findings “that may be violations of Chapter 494, Florida Statutes.” Therefore, it recommended that management thoroughly review the matter and promptly respond in writing stating any exceptions or disagreements it had, any action taken to correct the possible violations, and any mitigating evidence. A written response was filed by Mr. Edgar, PMF’s independent consultant, who interacted with the auditors on behalf of PMF during the examination and responded to document requests. Pet’r Ex. 2. After receiving Mr. Edgar’s response, the Complaint was issued by OFR on January 18, 2017. Although the Report contains 13 findings that may be violations of chapter 494, the Complaint relies on only eight. Based upon the scope and nature of the violations, the charging document seeks to revoke PMF’s mortgage broker license and to impose a $53,300.00 administrative fine on Mr. Cugno, as the control person of the lender and broker. No action is proposed regarding Mr. Cugno’s loan originator license. The thrust of the Report is the failure of Mr. Cugno to have complete control over the operations of the business. In determining the merits of the charges, the undersigned has considered: a) Mr. Cugno’s responses to OFR’s Requests for Admissions, which admit the allegations in five Counts3/; b) Mr. Edgar’s written response to the Report, which essentially admits all of the violations and outlines the proposed corrective action that PMF intends to implement; and c) the evidence in the record. The Charges Count I Count I alleges that during the audit period, PMF operated a branch office in Delray Beach, Florida, without a license. Each branch office is required to be separately licensed. § 494.0011(2), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V- 40.036. A branch office is defined in section 494.001(3) as a location, other than a mortgage lender’s or mortgage broker’s principal place of business, where business is conducted under chapter 494, and one of the following is true: Business cards, stationery, or advertising references a licensee’s name associated with a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; Advertising, promotional materials, or signage using a licensee’s name suggests that mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded, or serviced at a location that is other than the licensee’s principal place of business; or Mortgage loans are originated, negotiated, funded or serviced by the licensee at a location that is other than its principal place of business. The Delray Beach location was not licensed as a branch office. Without a license, PMF was not authorized to use the Delray Beach address on any materials used in its mortgage business or to originate loans from that location. During the audit period, a PMF employee, Bryan J. Mittler, then a recently admitted attorney who had worked for PMF since around 2012, was using business stationery and business cards under the name of PMF that referenced his name and the Delray Beach location, 2236 Bloods Grove Circle. Pet’r Ex. 10. The printed material contained statements such as “We’re your key to financing your new home” and “For a free no-obligation consultation and instant pre-approval call us anytime!” Id. Another business card identifies Mr. Mittler as an attorney and branch manager of PMF. Id. None of these materials mention the address of the principal office in Tampa. They support a finding that Mr. Mittler was using promotional materials to originate, negotiate, fund, or service mortgage loans at the Delray Beach location. Other indicia of operating a branch office are found in Mr. Mittler’s response to a written inquiry by the auditor in September 2015, in which he signed the letter as “Branch Manager.” Pet’r Ex. 8. Mr. Mittler’s letter states in part that “[w]e became a branch in November 2012 with the first loan disposition in December 2012.” Id. He also acknowledges that “[o]ur branch’s loan files are maintained at 2236 Bloods Grove Circle, Delray Beach, FL.” Id. In yet another letter to the auditor, Mr. Mittler identifies himself as Branch Manager. Pet’r Ex. 10. The Delray Beach office also maintained its own bank account and identified it as a branch bank account. Pet’r Ex. 11. Finally, internet advertising by PMF during the audit period states that Mr. Mittler “was chosen to head our new, Delray Beach branch office.” Pet’r Ex. 13. In response to a request by the auditor that PMF provide a list of all PMF employees, on September 29, 2015, Mr. Edgar submitted a list of employees as of that date, which identifies Mr. Mittler as the branch manager of the Delray Beach office. It describes his duties as “manag[ing] all operations of branch office [and] Originating Mortgages.” Pet’r Ex. 7. Finally, Mr. Edgar’s response to the Report states that “I am surprised to find that the Delray Beach office was not licensed as a branch.” Pet’r Ex. 2. He characterizes this as “negligence” on the part of PMF and represents that PMF intends “to license this branch and be in full compliance.” Id. PMF was eventually issued a branch license for the Delray Beach office in March 2016. At hearing, Mr. Cugno denied that PMF was operating a branch office in Delray Beach. He testified that even though there was no branch office, Mr. Mittler was allowed to use the title of branch manager because Mr. Mittler did not want to be given a less important title. Mr. Cugno also explained that a “statute” or “regulation,” later identified in Respondents’ PRO as Rule 1-3.3, The Rules Regulating the Florida Bar, required Mr. Mittler to provide his Delray Beach address on all documents and materials that he prepared or was using. While the rule requires that an attorney’s official bar name “be used in the course of a member’s practice of law,” it does not specifically require that a member’s address be reflected on all documents prepared. Assuming that the rule imposes this requirement, nothing in the record suggests, much less proves, that Mr. Mittler’s activities on behalf of PMR were part of his practice of law, he was employed as an attorney for PMF, or a law office was even located at the Delray Beach address. The PRO contends the Delray Beach location “may” have been a law office which caused confusion in PMF’s “paperwork.” These arguments have been rejected. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that during the audit period, the Delray Beach location was a branch office within the meaning of section 493.001(3), and it operated without a license. Count II Each mortgage broker and lender must maintain a Mortgage Brokerage and Lending Transaction Journal (Journal) which, at a minimum, contains the name of the mortgage loan applicant, date of the application, disposition of the application, and the name of the lender, if applicable. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.265(1). Count II alleges that during the audit period, PMF violated the statute and rule by failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal of all transactions at its Tampa office. PMF’s response to the Report states that, to correct the deficiency described in Count II, the firm would begin “implementing controls” and making “periodic audits” to ensure that a current Journal would be maintained in the future. Pet’r Ex. 2. Also, in its response to the Requests for Admissions, PMF admits that it maintained separate Journals for each of the branch offices, and the principal office Journal was incomplete or inaccurate. Finally, unrefuted testimony by the auditor at hearing established that an examination of PMF’s Journal revealed that certain loans were not listed and “entries that were part of the requirements of the loan journal were not made.” Notably, out of more than 470 transactions identified in PMF’s mortgage loan report (a quarterly report that must be filed by licensed companies indicating their loan activity), the Journal listed only 182 loans. Pet’r Ex. 20. At hearing, Mr. Cugno testified that PMF did not know how to fill out a journal, and efforts by his former compliance manager to get instructions from OFR were unsuccessful. However, this does not excuse the violation. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge in Count II is sustained. Count III A mortgage broker is required to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of the original entry. § 494.0016(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 69V-40.175(8). The Complaint alleges that PMF violated this requirement by failing to maintain at its principal office all records of email and electronic communications between PMF and its borrowers. The evidence shows that during the audit period, complete documentation of every application/transaction was not maintained at the Tampa office. For example, some loan originators at branch offices had individual email accounts through which they were communicating and transmitting documents for loan files, but they did not copy those email communications to the principal office. Pet’r Ex. 23 and 24. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, Mr. Cugno admitted that certain documentation for loan applications was kept at locations other than their Tampa office. In his response, Mr. Edgar also acknowledged that PMF did not comply with the statute and rule and represented that PMF would utilize a new “email usage policy and procedure” to correct the problem. While Respondents allege the information from the Tampa and branch offices was available on-line, this does not satisfy the requirement that complete documentation be maintained at the principal office. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count III have been established. Count IV Section 494.00165(2) requires that a licensee maintain a record of samples of each of its advertisements for examination by OFR for two years after the date of publication or broadcast. The purpose of this requirement is to enable the auditor to verify that the licensee’s advertisements are not deceptive or misleading. To comply with the statute, PMF was required to maintain for two years in a central file a copy of each advertisement. During the examination, the auditor requested that PMF provide its complete file of advertisements during the audit period. PMF initially responded that there was no corporate advertising and therefore no samples were kept on file. Pet’r Ex. 12. A subsequent audit of the branch offices revealed that business cards, flyers, placards, posters, and internet were used by the branch offices for advertising purposes. Pet’r Ex. 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17. The auditor also found entries on PMF’s books reflecting advertising expenses of over $200,000.00 during the audit period. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that due to operating the business as a “decentralized model,” PMF did not have proper supervision of the marketing activities of loan officers. Mr. Edgar went on to state that he was “surprised” to learn that “several Loan Officers appear to have engaged in either limited advertising campaigns or hosting their own independent activities.” He promised that PMF would “begin to exercise more control over the marketing activities of all employees” and to ensure that all documentation related to advertising would be sent to the Tampa office for centralized storage. At hearing and in their PRO, Respondents took a different tack and argued that: it is technically impossible to provide the auditor with every single copy of material that could be characterized as a marketing activity; the $200,000.00 advertising expense on their books was a “coding error”; and during the audit period, Respondents misunderstood what OFR considers to be advertising, and once this misconception was cleared up, they submitted “a more fulsome response.” These arguments have been considered and rejected as being contrary to the clear and convincing evidence. By clear and convincing evidence, the charge has been sustained. Count V Section 494.00165(1)(e) prohibits licensees from engaging in misleading advertisements regarding mortgage loans, brokering services, or lending services. Count V alleges that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to advertise itself as a lender even though its lender license had been surrendered.4/ As of January 1, 2015, PMF was a licensed mortgage broker and no longer held a mortgage lender license. Advertising by the Fort Myers branch office after January 1, 2015, identified PMF as a “full correspondent lender” and listed the old mortgage lender license number. Pet’r Ex. 15. Also, as late as February 2016, advertising posters were on the windows at the Tampa office, visible to the public, reflecting that PMF was an approved VA lender. Pet’r Ex. 17. Finally, OFR witness Slisz testified that as of March 30, 2018, the Fort Myers branch office still was advertising itself as a full correspondent lender. By advertising in this manner, PMF implied to consumers that it would originate the loan, negotiate the terms of the loan, and determine the fees that would be charged, things it could not do as a broker. In his response to the Report, Mr. Edgar admitted that PMF did not comply with the statute “due entirely to [its] negligence in updating PMF’s logo and promotional materials after the change in licensing that occurred [on January 1, 2015].” Pet’r Ex. 2. However, he asserted there was no intent to deceive or mislead customers. In their PRO, Respondents also concede “there were a few months where this advertisement occurred,” but maintain there is no evidence that any consumer had been impacted. Finally, in their response to the Requests for Admissions, Respondents admit that after January 1, 2015, PMF continued to represent itself as a licensed mortgage lender. In mitigation, Mr. Cugno pointed out that no customer was harmed. Also, he blamed the advertising signs in the windows at PMF’s Tampa office on the building manager, who he says put the signs up for a few days to block the sun while new blinds were being installed. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the charges in Count V are true. Count VI Section 494.0025(7) provides that a licensee cannot “pay a fee or commission in any mortgage loan transaction to any person or entity other than a licensed mortgage broker or mortgage lender, or a person exempt from licensure under this chapter.” The statute is designed to ensure that every person receiving fees in a transaction is licensed. Count VI alleges that during the audit period, Respondents paid commissions or fees from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed brokers or lenders. During the audit period, several loan originators established separate entities that were not licensed but were paid fees or commissions for various transactions. Pet’r Ex. 18. In its response to the Report, Mr. Edgar conceded that such fees were paid incorrectly because PMF “mistakenly believed” that its practice of paying a loan officer’s separate business entity was equivalent to paying the loan officer personally. The response added that in the future, “only licensed individuals will be paid commissions on mortgage loan transactions” and “no separate loan entities will be compensated any amount for any work performed on mortgage loan transactions.” Pet’r Ex. 2. Respondents also acknowledge in their response to the Requests for Admissions that they paid fees, costs, and expenses to persons or entities that did not hold loan originator licenses. Finally, at hearing, Mr. Cugno admitted that unlicensed entities were “definitely” paid, but there was no intent to deceive customers. By clear and convincing evidence, OFR has established that the allegation in Count VI is true. Count VII Section 494.00665(1) requires each mortgage lender business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the business. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it held a mortgage lender license. PMF was a licensed mortgage lender during the first six months of the audit period, July 1, 2014, through December 30, 2014. During that time, Mr. Cugno was PMR’s principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that while Mr. Cugno was the control person in 2014, PMF engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch office without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Lending Transaction Journal; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; and Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement. The significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained. As previously found, however, all of these charges have been established by clear and convincing evidence. Respondents contend they did not have proper notice as to which of the four acts OFR relies upon to prove this charge. But items (a) through (d) simply track Counts I through IV in the Complaint. In his response to the Requests for Admissions, except for the branch office allegation, Mr. Cugno admitted that the other allegations are true. The response to the Report states that Respondents are “embarrassed” by the auditor’s findings and that new policies and procedures will be implemented to address the deficiencies. The response acknowledges that PMF “has been without a committed and proactive compliance professional in a full time capacity for some time,” and represents that Mr. Edgar will become PMF’s Vice President of Compliance and Human Resources and apply for a license as a loan originator. Pet’r Ex. 2. At hearing, Mr. Cugno did not directly respond to the charges. Instead, he testified that he would defer to the undersigned’s judgment in deciding whether the charges are true. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VII have been proven. Count VIII Section 494.0035(1) requires each mortgage broker business to be operated by a principal loan originator who is to have full charge, control, and supervision of the mortgage broker. PMF was a licensed mortgage broker during the last four months of the audit, January 1, 2015, through April 30, 2015. During this same time period, Mr. Cugno was the principal loan originator. The Complaint alleges that Mr. Cugno was not in full charge, control, and supervision of PMF when it engaged in two or more of the following acts: Operated a branch location without a license; Failed to maintain complete and accurate Mortgage Brokerage Transaction Journals; Failed to maintain complete documentation at its principal place of business; Advertised without maintaining a record of samples of each advertisement; Inaccurately advertised themselves as a lender; and Paid fees or commission from mortgage loan transactions to entities that were not licensed mortgage brokers or mortgage lenders. Items (a) through (f) are the six violations described in Counts I through VI of the Complaint. Although the significance of having committed “two or more” violations was not explained, each of these allegations has been proven by clear and convincing evidence. Even the response to the Report admits that Mr. Cugno did not exercise full control over the operations of the business during the audit period. By clear and convincing evidence, the allegations in Count VIII have been proven. Disciplinary Guidelines Rule 69V-40.111 adopts by reference a range of penalties that may be imposed on a mortgage loan originator and mortgage entity for violating each of the 102 statutory provisions that OFR enforces. See Form OFR-494-14. Depending on the nature of the violation, the administrative fines are categorized as Level A ($1,000.00 to $3,500.00), B ($3,500.00 to $7,500.00), and C ($7,500.00 to $10,000.00). In determining an appropriate penalty that falls within the penalty guidelines, OFR must consider the mitigating and aggravating factors set forth in subsection (3) of the rule. Mitigating factors to be considered are as follows: If the violation rate is less than 5% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed; No prior administrative actions by the Office against the licensee or control person within the past 10 years; If the licensee detected and voluntarily instituted corrective responses or measures to avoid the recurrence of a violation prior to detection and intervention by the Office; If the violation is attributable to a single control person or employee, and if the licensee removed or otherwise disciplined the individual prior to detection or intervention by the Office; If the licensee is responsive to the Office’s requests or inquiries or made no attempt to impede or delay the Office in its examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct; or Other control, case-specific circumstances. Aggravating factors to be considered in assessing a penalty are as follows: If the violation rate is more than 95% when compared to the overall sample size reviewed (sample size must be equal to or greater than 25 transactions and cover a date range of at least 6 months); The potential for harm to the customers or the public is significant; Prior administrative action by the Office against the licensee or an affiliated party of the licensee within the past 5 years; If the licensee’s violation was the result of willful misconduct or recklessness; The licensee attempted to conceal the violation or mislead or deceive the Office; or Other control relevant, case-specific circumstances. In its PRO, OFR maintains that PMF’s broker license should be revoked, and an administrative fine in the amount of $53,300.00 should be imposed on Mr. Cugno. On the other hand, Respondents’ PRO contends that revocation of the broker license is not warranted, and “a fine of no more than $10,000.00 total for all matters in the Administrative Complaint is a fair outcome.” The worksheet used by OFR in determining the proposed penalties would be helpful, but it is not in the record. Also, at hearing, neither party addressed in detail the mitigating and aggravating factors. However, testimony by OFR’s Director of the Division of Consumer Finance, Mr. Oaks, briefly explained the rationale for OFR’s proposed disciplinary action. For operating a branch office without a license, the rule calls for a penalty of $1,000.00 per day, with a maximum penalty of $25,000.00. Because this violation occurred every day during the 304-day audit period, Mr. Oaks explained that OFR is proposing the maximum penalty of $25,000.00. For failing to maintain a complete and accurate Journal at the principal office, the guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that after reviewing all mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the maximum penalty of $3,500.00, and license revocation, are appropriate for the violations described in Count II. For failing to maintain at its principal place of business the complete documentation of each mortgage loan transaction/application for three years from the date of original entry, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks testified that OFR is extremely dependent on records when conducting a compliance examination. If complete and accurate records are not kept at the principal place of business, OFR cannot ensure that the business is operating in a lawful manner. Where there is an absence of records, there is potential for great consumer harm. Given the circumstances presented here, he proposes a $2,700.00 penalty and revocation of the license. For failing to maintain a record of samples of each advertisement for a period of two years, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. In this case, PMF had no samples of advertisements at its principal office. When no samples are maintained, OFR is unable to determine whether a licensee is engaging in misleading or deceptive advertising. For this reason, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $3,500.00 and revocation of the license. For engaging in misleading advertising, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of the license. Mr. Oaks characterized PMF’s advertising after January 1, 2015, as “completely misleading” because it erroneously represented to the public that PMF was a correspondent lender. For this reason, he proposes the maximum penalty of $7,500.00 and revocation of the license. For paying a fee or commission in any transaction to a person or entity other than a lender or broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a fine ranging from $3,500.00 to $7,500.00 and suspension or revocation of a broker’s license. Mr. Oaks explained that the licensing process is designed to protect consumers from unlicensed individuals and to ensure that only licensed individuals will be involved in the transaction. For violating the statute, Mr. Oaks proposes a fine of $4,100.00 and revocation of the license. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a mortgage lender, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. Because of the number and nature of violations, Mr. Oaks concluded that Mr. Cugno did not have control of his business and did not take adequate steps to ensure that the business was “being run lawfully.” Besides Mr. Oaks’ testimony, OFR witness Slisz, the Tampa area financial manager, also concluded there was a lack of complete control by Mr. Cugno based on loan originators “using emails not on the company server”; an “unlicensed location”; “loan originators taking freedom to advertise on their own without approval”; and PMF’s inability “to produce a log of the loans that the company received applications for.” OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. If a principal loan originator fails to have complete control over the operations of a broker, the disciplinary guidelines call for a penalty ranging from $1,000.00 to $3,500.00. For the reasons enunciated by Mr. Oaks and witness Slisz, OFR seeks the maximum penalty of $3,500.00. Besides the foregoing testimony, the evidence shows that there was a potential for harm to customers or the public; most of the violations proven were “serious”; PMF has one prior disciplinary action in December 2014, which was resolved by PMF surrendering its lender license and paying a $2,500.00 fine; and PMF was issued a notice of non-compliance regarding its late filing of quarterly reports for the year 2012. Pet’r Ex. 4. In mitigation, there is no evidence that any specific customer was harmed or misled. There is no evidence that the violations were the result of willful misconduct or recklessness on the part of Respondents, or that they attempted to conceal a violation or mislead or deceive OFR. The violations cited by the auditor appear to be due to a lack of oversight by management, neglect, or a failure to understand OFR regulations. Although Respondents did not detect or voluntarily institute corrective action or measures prior to the audit, there is evidence that beginning with his assumption of control of the business in 2012, and during the audit, Mr. Cugno occasionally contacted the Tampa district office seeking advice on how to comply with OFR statutes and rules. Finally, there is no evidence that PMF attempted to impede or delay the examination or investigation of the underlying misconduct, or that any customer was harmed. Considering the aggravating and mitigating factors on which the parties presented evidence, the undersigned determines that the mortgage broker license should be suspended for six months and a $20,000.00 administrative fine imposed on Mr. Cugno. Procedural Issues In their PRO, Respondents focus largely on the argument that Mr. Cugno was not qualified to represent himself or PMF, and therefore the case should be reopened to allow Respondents, with the assistance of counsel, “to make [their] record and better present the facts and the circumstances.” PRO at 16. Mr. Cugno is the owner and president of the corporation. As such, he may represent the corporation in an administrative proceeding, even though he is not an attorney. See The Magnolias Nursing & Convalescent Ctr. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 428 So. 2d. 256, 257 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)(“it is clear that self-representation by corporations is permissible in administrative hearings”). Because Mr. Cugno is not a “qualified representative” under rule 28-106.106, there is no requirement that a preliminary determination be made that he is "qualified" to represent his corporation. Likewise, the rule does not require that a preliminary determination be made that an individual, acting pro se, is qualified to represent himself. Mr. Cugno is an experienced operator of a mortgage business, having been in that field for 22 years. Besides PMF’s operations in Florida, Mr. Cugno testified that he operates “businesses” in Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Minnesota, and Georgia. Mr. Cugno acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on February 6, 2017. After initially requesting that an informal telephonic hearing under section 120.57(2) be conducted to contest the application of the law, on September 28, 2017, he asked that he be given a formal hearing under section 120.57(1) to contest the factual findings in the Complaint. During the seven-month informal phase of this proceeding, Mr. Cugno elected to represent himself and the corporation. After the proceeding was converted to a formal proceeding, an Initial Order was issued on September 29, 2017, which informed Mr. Cugno that a “party may appear personally or be represented by an attorney or other qualified representative.” Notwithstanding this information, Mr. Cugno voluntarily decided to continue to represent himself and the corporation. Prior to the hearing, he participated in three depositions taken by OFR; he deposed OFR witness Quaid; he responded to discovery requests; and he served discovery on OFR. At hearing, he engaged in extensive cross-examination of the OFR auditor. Finally, in a letter to OFR dated August 19, 2015, Mr. Cugno stated that PMF has its own “legal department,” see Petitioner’s Exhibit 12; and, at hearing, he testified that PMF employed three attorneys, on at least a part-time basis, as loan originators. If these representations are true, legal advice was not far away. In any event, Respondents are not entitled to a second hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Office of Financial Regulation enter a final order sustaining the charges in Counts I through VIII; suspending PMF’s mortgage broker license for six months; and imposing an administrative fine on Mr. Cugno in the amount of $20,000.00. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of June, 2018.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Petitioner’s application for licensure as a mortgage broker should be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: A Final Order be entered denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a mortgage broker. DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DIANE CLEAVINGER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Fleming 1653 Bass Avenue Seville, Florida 32191 Robert H. Schott, Esquire Office of Financial Regulation Post Office Box 8050 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-8050 Alex Hager, Acting Commissioner Office of Financial Regulation 200 East Gaines Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Robert Beitler, General Counsel Department of Financial Services 200 East Gaines Street, Suite 526 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, as well as the parties' stipulations of fact, the following relevant facts are found: The petitioner Jose A. (Tony) Torres was employed by the respondent Office of the Comptroller, Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance from approximately June of 1963 until February of 1986. For about 13 years, he held the position of Area Financial Manager in the Tampa office and was responsible for and in charge of regulating mortgage brokerage businesses and licensees in ten counties along the west coast of Florida. By letter dated February 11, 1986, petitioner was notified of the respondent's intent to dismiss him from employment on the grounds that, in spite of prior warnings, he had obtained loans from licensed individuals and institutions he was responsible for regulating. Petitioner was given the opportunity to respond to this notice, did so and the respondent thereafter affirmed its intent to dismiss him. Petitioner did not contest or appeal his dismissal. On March 6, 1986, petitioner submitted to the respondent his application for registration as a mortgage broker. By Order dated and filed on May 23, 1986, respondent denied his application, concluding that petitioner does not have the requisite experience, background, honesty, truthfulness or integrity to act as a mortgage broker in Florida. The factual bases cited for this conclusion are that petitioner was arrested in September of 1979 for gambling; that he declared bankruptcy in 1980; and that he obtained loans in 1981, 1983, and 1984 from individuals and/or financial institutions which were licensed by the Division of Finance, and also that said loans have never been repaid. The Centro Asturiano Club is a private social club where gambling (poker) regularly occurs. On Friday, August 31, 1979, at approximately 3:00 p.m., petitioner and others were arrested for gambling at the Centro Asturiano. At the time of the arrest, the police seized certain items including a Smith and Wesson .38 caliber firearm and $670. A motion to suppress evidence and a motion to dismiss were ultimately granted and the petitioner was not convicted. The gambling arrest occurred on a regular business day in the Office of the Comptroller. Petitioner states that he was on annual leave at the time. An employee in his office observed petitioner's secretary make changes in the petitioner's leave slip forms on the afternoon of August 31, 1979. It was not established that such alterations were not proper. On May 30, 1980, petitioner filed a petition pursuant to Title 11, United States Code. An order for relief was entered under Chapter 7, with a Discharge of Debtor ordered on October 8, 1980, by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida (Bankruptcy No. 80-00750). At least six entities listed as creditors in petitioner's bankruptcy proceeding were licensees of the Department of Banking and Finance. At the time, petitioner was charged with examining and regulating those six entities in his capacity as the Area Financial Manager for the Division of Finance. In 1979 and/or 1980, petitioner's superiors in the Department admonished him to refrain from obtaining loans from the industry he regulated, and that such activity constituted a violation of Departmental policy and the Code of Ethics for Public Officers and Employees, Chapter 112, Florida Statutes. On March 1, 1983, petitioner obtained a signature loan of approximately $2,200 from the A. L. Machado, M.D. Pension Trust. Colonial Mortgage, Inc., which was then licensed with the Division of Finance as a mortgage broker, serviced the loan. Darrell T. DiBona, the director of Colonial, became licensed as an additional broker on June 19, 1983. The payment record on this loan, discovered during an examination by the Division of Finance in May of 1985, reflected that four interest payments had been made, but that the principal balance was still outstanding. Darrell T. DiBona made a check payable for one of the petitioner's interest payments owed to the Machado pension fund. The petitioner's version of the facts surrounding the Machado loan is not credible. He states that he had known Darrell T. DiBona for many years. DiBona handled petitioner's insurance needs, and petitioner, wishing to increase his coverage, had had a medical examination which indicated either an irregular heartbeat or fatty tissues in his blood. According to petitioner, he was having lunch with DiBona one day, and DiBona needed to stop by Dr. Machado's office on business. DiBona apparently handled pension funds for various physicians. While at Dr. Machado's office, the subject of petitioner's medical condition arose. Petitioner states that Dr. Machado offered to check his irregular heartbeat and gave him an EKG. During that examination petitioner asserts that he told Dr. Machado that he was having financial difficulties, and Dr. Machado offered to loan him $2,200. Petitioner insists that he made three or four payments on a note, and then paid it off in full in May or July of 1984. This latter payment, according to petitioner, was made in cash and handed to DiBona. Petitioner never received a receipt for the "$2,200 in cash plus the interest." Petitioner states that he subsequently asked for a receipt or the note on several occasions, but was told that it could not be found. The note and payment record were found by the respondent during an examination of Colonial Mortgage in May of 1985. As noted above, the payment record revealed that only three or four interest payments had been made. Dr. Machado has no recollection of examining petitioner in his office or otherwise discussing a loan with him. Had petitioner been examined by Dr. Machado, a ledger card or chart would have been prepared. No ledger card or chart for the petitioner could be discovered in Dr. Machado's office. Dr. Machado did not become aware that money from his pension fund was lent to petitioner until after DiBona's death. His office manager was then asked to write a letter stating that the petitioner's loan had been paid in full. Such a letter was written and petitioner picked up the letter from Dr. Machado's office. Although he had no knowledge concerning the loan, Dr. Machado agreed to sign the letter because he thought that petitioner could be one of DiBona's innocent victims. He, as well as other physicians, lost pension fund monies from accounts handled by Darrell DiBona. Beneficial Mortgage Company was licensed with the Division of Finance in November of 1984 as a mortgage broker. During that time, petitioner contacted the regional supervisor of Beneficial, who does not himself regularly take loan applications, regarding a home mortgage loan for his mother. On November 20, 1984, a $30,590 mortgage loan from Beneficial Mortgage was obtained, and petitioner co-signed the loan documents. The loan proceeds were utilized to pay off two prior mortgages, one of which was Colonial Mortgage. Petitioner's mother is elderly, speaks little English and petitioner often handled her financial affairs. According to the regional supervisor, petitioner was asked to co-sign the note in order to avoid any questions which might arise in the future regarding Mrs. Torres' competency to enter into such a transaction. As a co-signer, however, petitioner was guaranteeing the account. While the mortgage loan was for an amount less than the house was appraised and contained no preferential terms or rates, Beneficial required no standard credit report, income analysis or other financial documentation concerning the petitioner. Mrs. Torres' income and debt ratio were barely sufficient to make the monthly payments on the loan. Petitioner has two brothers and a sister who also live in Tampa. On December 6, 1984, petitioner obtained a $2,000 signature loan from N. D. Properties, Inc. N. D. Properties was solely owned at that time by Ben Langworthy, Jr., who also owned Diversified Mortgage Associates, Inc. At that time, both Diversified and Langworthy were licensed with the Department of Banking and Finance, Division of Finance. The petitioner made at least two loan payments directly to Ben Langworthy, who he knew was licensed by the Department. The $2,000 check given to petitioner was signed by Ben Langworthy. According to petitioner, Mr. Langworthy told him that N. D. Properties, Inc. was owned by two private investors. Petitioner's loan payment record with N. D. Properties shows that the loan has not been timely repaid.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Jose A. (Tony) Torres for registration as a mortgage broker in Florida be DENIED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 3rd day of June, 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of June, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER IN CASE NO. 86-2473 The proposed findings of fact submitted by the petitioner and the respondent have been fully considered and have been accepted and/or incorporated in this Recommended Order, except as noted below. Petitioner p.1, last paragraph: Rejected; legal conclusion as opposed to factual finding p.2, 2nd paragraph, 2nd sentence: Rejected, irrelevant and immaterial p.2, 3rd paragraph: Rejected; immaterial p.2, 5th paragraph: Rejected; argumentative p.3, 1st two paragraphs: Rejected; argumentative p.3, paragraphs 7, 8 & 9: Accepted, but not included as irrelevant to ultimate disposition p.4, last four paragraphs: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.5, paragraphs 3 - 5: Rejected; contrary to the greater weight of the evidence p.7, paragraphs 1 and 3: Rejected; not proper factual findings p.8, paragraphs 1 through 7: Rejected; argumentative and improper factual findings Respondent #6: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence #20 & 21: Rejected; not supported by competent, substantial evidence COPIES FURNISHED: Dick Greco, Esquire Molloy, James & Greco, P.A. 501 East Kennedy Boulevard Suite 910 Tampa, Florida 33602 Sharon L. Barnett Assistant General Counsel Office of the Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 713 Tampa, Florida 33602-3394 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 Charles Stutts General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol - Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0305 =================================================================
The Issue The issue in (License) Case No. 92-2942: Whether or not the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by BOYER MORTGAGE CORPORATION should be granted or denied. The issues in (Disciplinary) Case No. 92-2943: Whether or not any disciplinary action should be taken against the individual mortgage broker's license held by FREDDIE Z. BOYER and BOYER MORTGAGE CORPORATION for violating various sections of Chapter 494 F.S. pertaining to mortgage brokers and correspondent mortgage lenders.
Findings Of Fact The time frame material to both cases is November 1991 through January 1992. At all times material, and currently, Freddie Z. Boyer was licensed with DBF as an individual mortgage broker, but he was and is not currently formally associated with any licensed mortgage brokerage business, mortgage lender, or correspondent mortgage lender. Mr. Boyer was formerly associated with First Coastal Mortgage Corporation, Inc. (First Coastal) as its principal and qualifying broker. The foregoing facts are found despite Mr. Boyer's testimony that he considered himself associated with First Coastal at all times material and considered himself still associated with First Coastal as of the date of formal hearing. In making the foregoing findings of fact, the undersigned has not relied on Mr. Hancock's and Ms. Poff's testimony to the effect that they "had been told" that First Coastal no longer exists or went out of business; this was unsubstantiated hearsay. Nonetheless, Mr. Boyer's testimony is clear that he, personally, ceased to function as an individual mortgage broker for First Coastal in October 1991, after an internal dispute with the two other owners of First Coastal who hold/held two-thirds of the stock of First Coastal. Mr. Boyer was/is a one-third stockholder of First Coastal. Mr. Boyer also testified that he had used his individual mortgage broker license to apply for First Coastal's corporate mortgage broker or mortgage lender license (it is not clear which) and that such a license had been issued to First Coastal upon his application and that thereafter that license was converted to the name and use of his two other partners because he had withdrawn as qualifying broker for First Coastal. He has left his individual mortgage broker's license on record with First Coastal but admittedly was not brokering loans through First Coastal at any time material to the instant cases. Mr. Boyer further testified that he incorporated and commenced business operations of Boyer Mortgage Corporation on October 17, 1991 to originate, sell, service, and transfer residential mortgages in Florida. All of the exhibits in evidence involving solicitation of mortgage loans name Boyer Mortgage Corporation, not First Coastal, as the mortgage lender or as the entity making inquiries and list Freddie Z. Boyer as the loan officer or broker. On December 27, 1991, DBF received an application from Boyer Mortgage Corporation for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender. The application disclosed that Mr. Boyer is the President-Secretary of Boyer Mortgage Corporation. At formal hearing, Mr. Boyer confirmed this to be true and that he also owns one-third of Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Question 7 on the application asks: Does the applicant have net worth of at least $25,000? (Documentation of net worth must be filed with this application. Audited financial statements prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles by an independent certified public accountant are required.) This question was answered in the affirmative. The application filed by Respondent Boyer on behalf of Boyer Mortgage Corporation was accompanied by an October 15, 1991 audit letter and financial statements to show that the corporation had the required $25,000 net worth. The October 15, 1991 audit letter which was submitted with the application contained the alleged signature of John M. Chancellor, Jr., Certified Public Accountant (CPA). The audit letter and financial statements were prepared on letterhead stationery purportedly that of Mr. Chancellor and predated incorporation of the corporate applicant, Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Mr. Chancellor testified by deposition that he did not conduct an audit of Boyer Mortgage Corporation and did not prepare the audit letter or financial statements which were submitted by Mr. Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corporation with the corporation's correspondent mortgage lender application to DBF. There is no dispute on this issue. Mr. Boyer testified that he, personally, prepared the audit letter and financial statements and signed John M. Chancellor, Jr.'s name to the audit letter. He also admitted he never contacted Mr. Chancellor to receive permission to sign his name. Mr. Boyer is a licensed CPA in the State of Florida. Although Mr. Boyer claimed at hearing that he had a current CPA business relationship with Mr. Chancellor which would permit Mr. Boyer to sign his "partner's" name to audits, Mr. Chancellor denied that any business relationship or any partnership existed between them as of the date of the audit, the financial statements, or the application for licensure by Boyer Mortgage Corporation. Although Mr. Chancellor admitted he had formed some type of CPA firm with Mr. Boyer in Louisiana in 1974 or earlier, Mr. Chancellor also testified that he, personally, had ceased to be licensed as a CPA in Louisiana in 1989. Mr. Chancellor has never been licensed as a CPA in Florida. Upon the foregoing, it is found that Mr. Boyer's assertion that he believed he had the legal right to audit his own business (Boyer Mortgage Corporation) and to sign Mr. Chancellor's name to the audit and financial statements upon which Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for Florida correspondent mortgage lender licensure was based is neither credible nor legally correct. The fact that Boyer and Chancellor apparently never actually ran any CPA business out of a common location and had only sporadically seen each other over the last several years renders incredible Mr. Boyer's protestations that he always had a legal right to sign a partner's name to anything. Assuming, arguendo, that Mr. Boyer did not have actual knowledge that Mr. Chancellor had ceased to be licensed as a CPA when he signed Mr. Chancellor's name to the audit and financial statements submitted with Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for licensure, Mr. Boyer still was not excused at law or by the dictates of common business sense from making reasonable inquiry to determine that fact. When Mr. Chancellor ceased to be licensed as a CPA in 1989, that fact alone terminated any CPA association he had with Mr. Boyer as of that date, and it is not necessary for the undersigned to go further and unravel all the non-dispositive sub-issues raised herein concerning whether or not Mr. Boyer or another person forged Mr. Chancellor's signature on a 1974 partnership agreement for the CPA firm or whether or not Mr. Chancellor was bound by that agreement to give Mr. Boyer 30 days written notice of Mr. Chancellor's withdrawal from their Louisiana CPA firm. The fact that Mr. Boyer and Mr. Chancellor may have had some other business relationship or operated out of some other corporation or partnership in the past is immaterial. Their other active business relationship also ended many years prior to the time frame and events relevant to this proceeding and has nothing to do with it. Mr. Boyer's self-serving testimony that some CPA Board authorized him to sign Mr. Chancellor's name is mere hearsay upon which no finding of fact may be based. Signing someone else's name in order to lead the DBF licensing authority to believe that an "independent certified public accountant" had audited Boyer Mortgage Corporation's financial statements when, in fact, Mr. Boyer himself merely "rubber stamped" his own work is clearly misleading and constitutes a material misstatement in connection with the application. Despite Mr. Boyer's protestations that generally accepted principles of CPA practice (GAAP) permit such camouflaging of the truth, no persuasive evidence to that effect was presented at formal hearing to rebut the clearly misleading nature of the materials themselves. It is noted that the accuracy or falsity of the financial statements themselves was not proven at formal hearing, but the falsification of the licensure application by way of Mr. Boyer's deliberately misleading the licensing agency into believing independent CPA materials were being submitted when these materials were not independent at all has been clearly and convincingly proven. During the period of November 1991 through January 1992, Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer solicited and accepted approximately thirty-four applications for mortgage loans without Boyer Mortgage Corporation being licensed as a mortgage brokerage business, a mortgage lender, or a correspondent mortgage lender, and without Mr. Boyer being associated with First Coastal or any other mortgage brokerage business. As previously noted, all applications in evidence show involvement of Boyer Mortgage Corporation; none show involvement of First Coastal. Also, Boyer Mortgage Corporation's application for correspondent mortgage lender was not even filed with DBF until December 27, 1991 (See, Findings of Fact 1-2 supra). It is further noted, however, that upon being warned by the Comptroller's Office that he could not do business, Mr. Boyer was cooperative and did not "close" thirty-three of these potential loans. One loan was closed for Marc and Janice Gillard in November 1991, and Boyer Mortgage Corporation received an origination fee and a portion of the discount points therefor. Despite the prior warning from the Comptroller's Office, Mr. Boyer authorized one of his Boyer Mortgage Corporation subordinates to close the Gillard loan through another lending institution because "Mr. Gillard was a friend" and Mr. Boyer "did not want them to lose their home." Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer charged and received fees for credit reports and appraisals on two of the thirty-four loan applications. With regard to those fees, Mr. Boyer and his corporation were essentially only a conduit to appraisers and credit reporting services for small amounts of money. Perhaps $150, at most, was retained by Respondents. Although the evidence falls short of any fraud against any of the loan applicants during that three month period of time, Boyer Mortgage Corporation and Mr. Boyer were also providing good faith estimates to applicants, obtaining appraisals and credit reports, submitting invoices, requesting verification of deposits from banks, and requesting verification of employment on the mortgage loan applicants. As such, Boyer Mortgage Corporation was acting as a mortgage broker without a current active license and Mr. Boyer was acting as a mortgage broker without being associated with a mortgage brokerage business in contravention of statute. The evidence, however, does not establish that either Respondent acted as a correspondent mortgage lender.
Conclusions The burden of proof in a license application case is upon the applicant. See, Florida Department of Transportation v. J.W.C. Co., Inc., 396 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). Herein, the parties adopted all of the evidence from DOAH Case No. 92-2943, the disciplinary case, and therefore all of the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law (except for the burden of proof) set out supra for DOAH Case No. 92-2943 are applicable to to DOAH Case No. 92-2942 as well. Boyer Mortgage Corporation's audit and financial statements were neither proven accurate nor inaccurate, so Boyer Mortgage Corporation cannot prevail in the license application case for that reason alone. Also, DBF has affirmatively proven that there was a material misstatement with regard to the independence of the CPA performing the audit and signing the financial statement and that these documents do not meet generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP). The foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law constitute sufficient grounds for denying, in DOAH Case No. 92-2942, the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by Freddie Z. Boyer o/b/o Boyer Mortgage Corporation pursuant to Section 494.0072(1)(f) F.S. RECOMMENDATION IN CASE 92-2943 It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order: Finding Respondent Freddie Z. Boyer guilty of violating Sections 494.0033 and Section 494.0041(2)(p) and subject to discipline as provided in Section 494.0041(1) F.S. Finding Respondent Freddie Z. Boyer, guilty of violating Sections 494.0063, 494.0025(5), 494.0041(2)(c), (j) and (p) and 494.0072(2)(c), (j) and (p) F.S. and Rule 3D-40.250 F.A.C. and subject to discipline pursuant to Section 494.0041(1) and 494.0072(1) F.S. and revoking his individual mortgage broker's license; Finding the Respondent Boyer Mortgage Corporation, guilty of violating Section 494.0063, 494.0025(3) and (5), 494.0041(2) (k) and (p), 494.0072(2)(c) (j), and (p), and Rule 3D-40.250 F.A.C. and subject to discipline pursuant to Section 494.0041(1), 494.072(1) F.S. and ordering it to cease and desist all mortgage brokerage business. RECOMMENDATION IN CASE NO. 92-2942 It is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Banking and Finance enter a final order denying the application for licensure as a correspondent mortgage lender filed by Boyer Mortgage Corporation. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of September, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The De Soto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NOS. 92-2942 and 92-2943 The following constitute specific rulings, pursuant to Section 120.59(2), F.S., upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) DBF's PFOF: 1-14 Accepted except to the degree they are unnecessary, subordinate or cumulative to the facts as found in the Recommended Order. The date in the PFOF has been corrected to correspond to the record. Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corp.'s PFOF: Response to Post-hearing Order 1-2, 4-5 Accepted. 3, 6-7 Rejected as either not supported by the record or as unnecessary, subordinate, or cumulative to the facts as found in the Recommended Order. Rejected as legal argument. Rejected as not supported by the record and/or legalarguement. Statement One This seems to be legal argument or conclusions of law and has been treated as such without rulings pursuant to Sections 120.59(2) F.S. Statement Two Rejected as statements of another state's law, materials not in evidence, and misstatements concerning the content of John M. Chancellor's deposition. Statement Three Rejected as legal argument. COPIES FURNISHED: Margaret S. Karniewicz, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Suite 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 Freddie Z. Boyer Boyer and Boyer Mortgage Corporation P. O. Box 5560 Destin, Florida 32540-5560 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller, State of Florida The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves General Counsel Room 1302, The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, James W. McKibbon was not licensed as a mortgage broker in Florida (Exhibit 1). MorBanc Financial Corporation was initially registered as a mortgage broker in Florida on February 27, 1989, and remained registered through June 15, 1990 (Exhibit 1). In August 1988, Respondent was employed by Sovereign Savings Bank to procure qualified home purchases needing mortgage money to be lent by Sovereign. MorBanc Financial Corporation was incorporated circa 1988 to become a mortgage brokerage firm. It opened a bank account and an office from funds contributed by its organizers. Respondent was offered shares in MorBanc and was elected president of the company. No evidence was submitted that Respondent was an investor in MorBanc. Thomas Pollak moved to Florida in 1988 and contracted to purchase a residence. The real estate agent with whom he was working recommended he seek a loan through MorBanc which was located in the same building with the real estate agent. Pollak assumed that MorBanc was a licensed mortgage broker in Florida. McKibbon's business card shows him as President of MorBanc Financial Corporation and lists FHA-VA-Conventional -- presumably loans that can be brokered by MorBanc. Respondent never told Pollak that he or MorBanc were mortgage brokers, and no applications for a mortgage loan completed by Pollak contained the name MorBanc. Instead, all of the application forms used were those used by Sovereign Savings Bank, and the loan application was submitted to Sovereign Savings Bank. The bank paid Respondent for procuring loans. MorBanc, prior to becoming registered as a mortgage broker, processed no loans from clients procured by Respondent McKibbon and paid McKibbon no commission or other compensation.
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against James W. McKibbon that he acted as a mortgage broker without being licensed to do so in Florida be dismissed. ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of July, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings Not Accepted. 2. Respondent helped set up the furniture in the office that was provided by one of the financial founders of MorBanc. Not accurate to call Respondent "instrumental" in this task. Teresa Tyler was the real estate agent procuring the contract with Pollak. No evidence was submitted that she was Respondent's real estate salesperson. While Pollak testified that Respondent mentioned he (Respondent) could work with more than one lender, the only lender mentioned by Respondent was Sovereign, and the loan was processed through Sovereign. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephen M. Christian, Esquire Office of Comptroller 1313 Tampa Street, Suite 615 Tampa, FL 33602-3394 William G. Reeves General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 James W. McKibbon 5770 Dartmouth Avenue St. Petersburg, FL 33710 Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller State of Florida The Capitol Tallahassee, FL 32399-0350 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact Mr. Charles Peters was employed by Ameri-lantic Corporation at the time he applied for licensure as a mortgage broker, and he is currently employed by Ameri-lantic Mortgage Brokerage Company. Mr. Peters' duties at Ameri-lantic have included contacting potential lenders. These duties have also included discussing loan terms and rates with potential lenders. As an employee of Ameri-lantic, Mr. Peters has received compensation for his efforts on behalf of his employer, in the form of salary. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' compensation was based on commissions of any kind. There is no evidence that Mr. Peters' duties included contacting persons who wished to borrow money, or that he acted to bring together those who wish to borrow with those who wished to lend money for mortgages.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the application of Charles Peters for licensure as a mortgage broker be granted, if he meets the other requirements for licensure, such as sucessful completion of the written examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1990, at Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of December, 1990. COPIES FURNISHED: Eric Mendelsohn, Esquire Department of Banking and Finance Office of the Comptroller 111 Georgia Avenue Suite 211 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401-5293 Robert L. Saylor, Esquire 215 Fifth Street Suite 302 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Honorable Gerald Lewis Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350 William G. Reeves, General Counsel Department of Banking and Finance The Capitol Plaza Level, Room 1302 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0350
